Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Someone requested I post this here. This is the format we used to score battle points each mission during our independent 40k GT this past weekend:

Battle Points Per Round:
W = 10
D = 5
L = 0

+3 if you destroyed all of your opponent's troop choices
+2 if you control more table quarters
+2 if you destroyed your opponent's highest point HQ
-1 if all your troop choices were destroyed
-1 if you control less table quarters
-1 if your highest point HQ was destroyed

Bonus Battle Points per Round:
+3 if the mission was objective based and you controlled more objectives by more than 2 to 1
+3 if the mission was kill points based and you had more kill points than your opponent by a margin of 4

This scoring system kept it pretty close amongst the top players throughout each round and also let some players that had a bad game the opportunity to climb back in for a shot at an award.

G

Any feedback?

G

+2 if you donate to the website

Keep raging against the machine Lormax.

G

Hi GBF

I have three questions:

• Where was MiniCon held?
• How many players?
• What was their response to the scoring system?

Cheers
Dave

Green Blow Fly wrote:Keep raging against the machine Lormax.

G

No offense meant GBF, was only meant in fun

ok

: )

G

Hi GBF, I'm curious about the +3 for controlling more than twice as many objectives as your opponent.

Depending on the mission you can have 2 (take and hold), 3, 4 or 5 (secure and control) objectives.

I can understand if you are playing with 4 or 5 objectives and you get a 3-1 score that bonus points are in order, but you would also get them in every 1-0 result, even if all other objectives were being bitterly contested and it was a close, hard fought game.


How about giving the bonus this way?

Take and Hold: +3 if you win and your opponent is not contesting either objective.
Secure and control: +3 If you win and control at least 2 objectives more than your opponent.

just my $0.02

yeah,
Seems a bit complicated and wishywashy...

I mean if you win you get 10 and the loser gets 0... and 5 for a draw... isn't that good enough... with +1 for Killing the Enemy HQ and +1 for each objective you hold... should differentiate who's on what table next round...

table quarters bonuses in missions that don't concern table quarters? why?

What's the point in minus modifiers for the flip side of a plus modifier?
eg. I kill your HQ and get 2points and you get -1 point.... why not just give the HQ killer the +3 point swing?

What's the point in making the margin of victory even bigger? with all the Plus points? other that to tell the winner just how great he is?
Why win by 10 points when you can win by a million points!!! I mean during your independent 40k GT that past weekend did you guys really need to know who the bestest best player is... was two people sharing a top table draw really not a option.

Panic...

Wait... was it possible to get negative points for a round? If you got tabled, was that a -3?

I like the looks of it, though I also am curious whether a negative score was possible.

Chimera_Calvin has a good point. His modifications look good.

Also, what were the missions? Standard ones from the book?

99
to davetaylor -

1) Raleigh, NC

2) 18... would have had more but the Ard Boyz semis was close by.

3) the players loved the scoring format as they could have a bad game buy still make a comeback.

G

No bonus points for controlling 1 objective versus 0... Not sure how you came up with that one.

No one received negative battle points.

Definitely the top two players going into the final round squared off.

There were a lot of times players could only score say 7 points when playing against anotherbplayer of the similiar caliber. The scoring system prevented a few players running away from the pack early on and the top ten had their work cut out for them each and every round. This kept everyone excited about playing since they knew they still had a chance to win an award. The top spots switched places throughout the two days. To me this is a lot more fun than one player getting on table 1 early on and staying there... the bonus points played into this as well since it was hard for anyone to grab max battle points each round. To me that is a big flaw in the current GW GT circuit system... you constantly see the same people on the top five tables.

And yes we would have probably had around 30 players if not for the Ard Boys semis being in the same city on the same day. I am not knocking GW but that was not good planning on their part as we had let them know months in advance. The good thing is the Ard Boys drew the power gamers and we had 18 beautifully painted armies show up... a lot like the old GTs... less emphasis was placed on winning every game by a massacre.

G

We used standard missions from the rulebook. There was one modifier in the last round... if you could destroy more enemy units than your opponent you would automatically control one of the two objectives. This was put in to prevent draws in the final round... worked too.

G